Joerg Wendland wrote:
>Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-22, 13:09, you wrote:
>> As previously pointed out, the same is true of software. I could insert
>> anti-semetic messages into pam-pgsql and NMU it now. Perhaps you should
>> change your license?
>
>No, you didn't get it. What I wrote before was example for why invariant.
>sections _can_ be useful. Do not compare apples and pears[0]. On the
>other hand is your anti-semetic message subject to penal law not
>copyright law, at least here in Germany... but I understand what you
>wanted to say.
Right, and invariant sections can be useful for software. So what?
>> If Emacs had an invarient section discussing fishing and how this had
>> inspired the authoring of the manual, it would be awkward for me to
>> use chunks in my document on an application for recording fishing
>> statistics. And if you say "But why would you want to do that" then I'll
>> scream because that's entirely not the point.
>
>But this _is_ the point. You cannot blame the author of the manual if it
>will be awkward for _you_ because this is entirely your problem.
It's entirely within the author's rights to do that, but it means that
the documentation is impossible to use for certain purposes. When we're
looking at software, we wouldn't accept that restriction. Why should we
accept it in documentation, when software would benefit just as much
from protection against contrary opinions?
>[0] german saying translated, does this exist in english?
It's apples and oranges in English, but yes.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org